That’s perfectly fine and expected. Because in pure economic terms, nostalgia comes at a high price.

Whether your vice is music, sports memorabilia, out-of-print literature or visiting Europe (or whatever “the old country” means to you), people will pay a significant premium to purchase something NOW that makes them feel a tinge of something from THEN.

Still, some jerks music fans like to get all uppity when a band like Slowdive reunites and their ticket prices skyrocket. The thing is, when you think of it in terms of simple supply and demand, why wouldn’t these prices spike?!? In 1994, the audience for Slowdive was mop-haired guys and girls who didn’t talk much plus assorted wannabe Anglophiles. In 2014, the audience is two additional decades worth of that type of music fan…. plus the entire original audience itself (except for those who died or moved to Courtice in the years since).

Demand goes up. Supply stays, more or less, the same. Do the math!

For more information and to learn more theories, go here. It’s a great place.

Getting back to Slowdive, a lot of notable bands have reunited in the last decade. However, even when compared to many of their contemporaries, returning after a 20 year absence is pretty rare. It begs the question: does staying away longer help pad your bottom line in terms of ticket prices?

(pause)

To help answer this question, I took a cross section of 18 of these notable bands who have returned to Toronto in the last decade after some sort of hiatus. I compared ticket prices for the “farewell” and “hello again” gigs and in an attempt to keep this apples-to-apples, I only included headline shows. This latter piece gets kinda dicey when we speak in terms of demand (i.e. the Constantines’ headline “reunion” show in Toronto this fall will technically be the third time they’ve played in the city since reuniting) but more on that later…

Also, none of the prices reflect services charges, venue fees or anything of that nature. Because people tend to hate taking about services charges, venue fees or anything of that nature.

Here is a list of the 18 bands in question, sorted by the year they returned to Toronto and also showing their last Toronto show before they disappeared for a while:

Now, the first graph below shows who had the longest gap between Toronto headline shows. The second graph shows who had the largest spike in ticket prices, expressed in terms of price percentage increase.

If there was a decent correlation between length of absence and increase in ticket price, these graphs should look somewhat similar shape-wise.

They don’t. At all.

Therefore, based on this (admittedly small) sample size, there is no real correlation between how long you’ve been away and how much you can jack up your prices.

Since the length of the hiatus, in and of itself, isn’t significant in boosting ticket prices across the board, here are a few less scientific factors that are:

– Venue: When Jesse Keeler posted this note on a Death From Above 1979 forum back in 2006 in order to napalm his band, it meant that the duo’s last headline show in Toronto was a series of insanely loud gigs at the cozy Horseshoe Tavern the summer prior. Based on their popularity at the time, it easily could’ve been a room 5x as big. But in the end, it was happenstance. Either way, $15 for a DFA1979 gig in 2005 was a “bargoon“.

– Non-Headline Gigs: The Constantines played their first 2014 reunion show in nearby Guelph, rocked at Broken Social Scene’s Field Trip festival shortly thereafter and will be opening for the Arcade Fire at the Molson Amphitheatre around Labour Day. Their first “proper” Toronto headline show isn’t until October but given their “around-ness” prior, did THAT affect ticket price for their Danforth Music Hall gig? Who cares… it’s just good to have ’em back!

– Everybody kinda rags on the Pixies for their never-ending reunion tour and the fact that it took them a decade to release anything new (and that was only after they gave Kim Deal the boot). However, considering how unlikely that reunion was (see “the fax story”) you think they could’ve charged more than $35 for their first Toronto show back in 2004. In many ways, they ushered in the initial wave of reunions fuelled by 1990s nostalgia (and cash… lots of it). If they had decided to suck it in 2008 instead of the hinterlands of 2004, I betcha tickets would’ve easily run $60 or more. Even at the brutal Arrow Hall, which mercifully is no longer with us as a concert venue.

– Speculative: if Morrissey decides to drop the seal hunt thing and play in Canada again, would tickets START at more than $100 a piece? I think so.

– My picks for the next wave of bands that we MIGHT see playing shows again within the next five years: Oasis, the Deadly Snakes (this show notwithstanding), Galaxie 500, Gene (would we care?!?), the Kinks (would they care?!?), Eric’s Trip (again), Siouxsie and the Banshees (again), Catherine Wheel (are they even broken up?!?), Local Rabbits, Gorky’s Zygotic Mynci, Supergrass, the White Stripes

MBV frontman Kevin Shields looked completely disengaged during the performance. Fellow cooer/guitarist Bilinda Butcher looked even bored-er. Speakers blared. Visuals were set to “seizure“. But reactions, energy, pulse? Nope. Just another day at the office for these two.

That’s OK.

Why do we necessarily need our musicians to look “into it”? IMHO, effort is a nice-to-have in a live setting but it’s perhaps even more impressive to see somebody create epic art with a degree of nonchalance. As was the case with MBV in Toronto. And the entire history of J Mascis playing guitar.

Aside: seeing a band look awesomely bored on-stage while making an incredible racket is another example of how contrast is an underappreciated aspect in music. For more on this genius theory, read this.

Many outfits get tagged with the “they’re awesome live” label. This can help in terms of selling tickets and moving merchandise. However, it can also act as a distraction from the actual music (i.e. art) being created. Thusly, there are some “awesome live” acts who may not get the full artistic credit they deserve based on their on-stage antics (Fucked Up, the Jesus Lizard). The end game is they may get pigeonholed by some observers alongside other acts who exist primarily as a “spectacle” rather than “recording artist” (Gwar, Monotonix) in the traditional sense.

Google nets 18,000+ results for the expression “they’re boring live” so clearly, boredom is a concern for many, many music fans. But really, it should come down to a question of expectations. It’s not really fair to the artist to expect any random concert to provide the same brand of entertainment across the board (bored?). In the case of a band like My Bloody Valentine who took a two decade break between albums, I’d be really surprised if they did appear into it. Why would anybody think otherwise? If they really wanted to play these concerts, they wouldn’t have sat out 1993-2007.

I’d argue that the only problematically “boring” concerts are when a young-ish band get massive in a hurry (i.e. the Strokes, MGMT), focus on the substances or other distractions and start mailing in performances while they’re still in the ascension phase. This seriously is the worst but these outfits are pretty easy to spot via YouTube or Reddit or countless other outlets. Do your research and buyer beware, I guess.

So My Bloody Valentine looked half asleep. I thought the concert was beyond fantastic. Fucked Up insight CONSIDERABLE moshing while their singer strangles himself with the mic cord. It’s delightful; I’ve seen them maybe 4-5 times. Again, it’s all a matter of expectations and with a slew of online resources available to give your concert going experience an anticipatory litmus test, it’s now easier that ever to vet your “entertainment” options in advance. If you have concerns…

Bonus! 10 photos of artists who are/were really good at looking bored and being awesome.

1. Bernard Sumner, New Order
2. Charlie Watts, Rolling Stones
3. Doug Martsch, Built to Spill
4. Jamie xx, the xx
5. John Entwistle, the Who

After witnessing recent live sets by Deerhunter and Fucked Up in quick succession, I had a total light bulb moment, man. It concerned music, music bands (!!!) and the ways in which music bands can differentiate themselves from the competition.

Part of the reason that Deerhunter and (Messed) Up are so striking on-stage is the visual contrast between their respective lead singers and their backers. Whether it’s the sinewy weirdness of Bradford Cox or the David Yow-meets-Ox Baker angle of Damian Abraham, one has to concede that these bands are significant aesthetically (and sonically, from what I can tell).

What IS new (or not new) is the acknowledgement that contrast is a fairly easy way to make your band “interesting” even if you are unable to make your band “good”.

Deerhunter and (Screwed) Up are certainly not the first outfits to explore the wonderful world of contrast. Here are 10 bands (all a varying degree of “good” IMHO) who have historically used the contrast model to set themselves apart (in a good way IHOP).

1. The Damned

A fairly standard looking O.G. punk outfit if you remove the fact that Dave Vanier insisted on dressing like a vampire. Never made any real sense with their sound and looked quite stupid at times.

2. The Boredoms

Founder and frontman Eye is the only constant in a quarter century of the Boredoms as his hair alone gives the band an image, which helps when the rest of the outfit typically looks like well-mannered exchange students.

3. Caninus

OMG!!! Easily the most gimmicky band on this list: a speed metal outfit “fronted” by a pair of pitbull. Listen to one of their full-lengths here. Notable because one of the band members wore an alien mask for this press shot and he was STILL overshadowed by the fact that his band was 40 per cent canine.

4. Blondie

Similar to Caninus except this band was fronted by a FOX!!! I kid, I kid but this doesn’t change the fact that without Deborah Harry leading the way, Blondie would aesthetically look like a more low-rent version of the Knack.

5. Guns N’ Roses (circa 2000-2004)

This was the Buckethead era of “the Gunners”. No idea why Axl would sign-off on this goofball playing with them, considering it’d obviously deflect attention from his cool dreadlocks and whatnot. And yeah, I get it: Buckethead is avant-garde or whatever but at the end of the day, he wears a KFC bucket as a hat. I mean… c’mon!

6. Roxy Music (circa 1971-1973)

Early, early Roxy Music were collectively known for being “fashion forward” but Brian Eno took things to the next level. Maybe to compensate for his hairline or maybe because of drugs. Or both!!! Anyway, he left, ultimately torched all his feathers and started to dress more like this guy.